Friday, June 26, 2015

What Does Jeb Bush Have in Common With Stephen Jay Gould?

Antinomianism

Evolution, a headline from earlier this month explained, “is unpredictable and irreversible, biologists show.” This was hardly a new thought for evolutionists. Stephen Jay Gould popularized the notion that if one could “replay the tape” of history the world would, as Eckels unfortunately discovered, turn out differently. It is contingency rather than law that governs history. Evolutionary events are “unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” in the words of the famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky. Or as Harvard’s Ernst Mayr wrote, “Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques” for explaining evolutionary events and processes. The world turns not according to Newton’s firm and unchanging laws but by particular, unique events which are for us to explore and explain. And as Phillip Johnson described, exploring and explaining, rather than following nature’s laws, gives us control. Given a lever and the law Archimedes could move the world, but given extension and motion Descartes’ could construct the world.

Antinomianism isn’t limited to theological debates. Whether in religion, science or politics, the law stands in our way. It blocks our control and so we reject it. By contrast the psalmist delights in the law. The book begins with the man who is blessed, for “his delight is in the law of the Lord.” Likewise Jesus explained that “till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

This ancient law is now the basis of our current legal system and it is every bit as important to us. Yet it is routinely rejected. Descartes and the evolutionists reject natural law in favor of absurd notions of the world spontaneously arising by creating itself. And in politics, equally silly notions are not hard to find. Leading presidential candidate Jeb Bush, for example, advocates warrantless surveillance. That’s fine if he can make it legal, but Bush rejects any such requirement. He states that there is not a shred of evidence that such surveillance has violated the rights of any American. Does he also believe there is not a shred of evidence that bank robberies have resulted in theft? Of course bank robberies have resulted in theft, otherwise they wouldn’t be bank robberies. Warrantless surveillance, by definition, is a violation of rights—it is illegal.

For Christians the law is precious and antinomianism, in any form, is to be avoided.

Well my feeling is that SSM is inherently bigoted, as it is not inclusive of other groups, and so as is often the case with evolutionary thought, it is hypocritical (i.e., criticizes traditional marriage for being bigoted).

This is where my recent comments collide. CH: Well my feeling is that SSM is inherently bigoted, as it is not inclusive of other groups, and so as is often the case with evolutionary thought, it is hypocritical (i.e., criticizes traditional marriage for being bigoted).AND my:

Acartia Tonsa: I should also note that your topic is not completely off topic. And I believe the use of the term "bigot" is somewhere appropriate in what is so hard to make clear in the areas of sorting "the law" under the three disciplines of science, religion and politics.

But what "traditional" marriage are you talking about? The one in which, up until recently, the wife had to promise to "obey" her husband? Or the one in which the husband was legally allowed to physically "correct" his wife?

The truth is, "traditional" marriage died a few decades ago, and we are all better for that.

To many, I believe, the "suitability" of any marriage arrangement would be a case by case evaluation and consideration of the understanding and motivations of the husband and wife who enter into the marriage. The concept of two consenting adults (individuals) and their freedom to choose and agree upon certain guidelines of the relationship. As well as their right to modify those guidelines.

Cornelius: I think you are just being Socratic from a 4th dimension of the law. WAIT: Or are you passing for Artificial Intlelligence? This is not a put down, just a guess and a variation of the rest of my attempts to weave through this subject.

Rather than comment further on this blogpot as I am processing it, I will hereby note that Justice Roberts seems to have left the door open to further change with his remarks as to "the law" vis a vis "God". It may leave room for further separation of church and state and "bigots".

Bigotry: In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them. Wiki

I hope that we agree that this is a reasonable definition of bigotry. Most of the arguments have been based on one or more of the following:

1) It will weaken the institution of marriage. How? Is the strength of your marriage based on who else is allowed to marry? I certainly hope not. I have been married for 30+ years and it is no weaker today than it was ten years ago. A marriage is only as strong as the commitment of the two people involved and, to a lesser extent, the support of those around us.

2) The government doesn't have the right to change the definition of marriage. Of course they do. For many, a marriage is a religious commitment but it is also a legal contract. Besides, the definition and practice of marriage has changed over time, and is different between cultures. Unless you are saying that wives must "obey" their husbands or that husbands are allowed to physically discipline their wives. Those changes sound to me like pretty significant re-definitions.

3) Marriage is restricted to couples who have the potential to reproduce. This is a non-starter unless we are going to prevent the elderly and the infertile from getting married.

4) It will open the gates to polygamy and inter species marriage. Ignoring the fact that polygamy is probably one of the more traditional forms of marriage, and still practiced in some cultures today, you deal with these if and when they arise as serious issues. The slippery slope argument is nothing more than scare tactics.

5) God is opposed to it. At least this argument has the benefit of being honestly given. But I don't think that we want to discuss what the bible says should be done with homosexuals (kill), or all of the things that Jesus said against homosexuality (nothing). Besides, atheists are allowed to get married so this argument fails.

So, I think that it is clear that these arguments are unreasonable ones and, by definition, those who obstinately stick by them would be exhibiting classic bigotry.

Good points. My point was simply that SSM is not an advocacy for open marriage, but rather for SSM. One could understand perhaps a focus on one type of marriage over others, but we're nowhere close to that, unless I'm missing something. I haven't heard a thing about advocating other forms of marriage. It seems to be all about SSM, period. This has nothing to do with open marriage.

Maybe we have been reading different news articles and watching different news programs. The last time I looked, opposite sex marriages didn't need anyone to advocate for it. All the SSM advocates are asking for is to be allowed to marry and have their marriages acknowledged and respected the same way that opposite sex marriages are. Unless someone can logically argue and show evidence that allowing this would cause cause harm to others or to society in general, I am inclined to go along with it.

The last time I looked, opposite sex marriages didn't need anyone to advocate for it.

Well I don't think you looked very far.

I understand your point. I just don't think is, or ever will be, about rights equality. I think this is about redefining marriage to include SSM, period. Now, after all this legal fighting and historic decisions, can polygamists marry? Wonder how that slipped through the cracks.

For a century the Christian church in the U.S. has done all it could to oppress and denigrate the LGBT community. It’s lobbied to have gays fired from jobs, denied equal housing, denier adoption privileges, even jailed. It’s accused all gays of being pedophiles out to molest and recruit children. It’s painted all gays as living some lewd promiscuous “gay lifestyle” and claimed AIDS is a gay disease sent to punish their sins. It’s claimed homosexuality is a mental illness that must be treated with painful and dangerous “reparative” therapy.

That’s quite the shameful list of institutionalized homophobic bigotry and intolerance. Now we're supposed to believe gays themselves are somehow at fault because in their fight for marriage equality they didn’t promote polygamy??? That’s some Olympic caliber “blame the victim” projection.

Oh my, that is quite a blast. Except that is not what I said--right after I pointed that out! If there is anything shameful here it is your blatant twisting of words.

So let me help. I'll ask you since W won't answer the question. After all the work for equality, inclusiveness, the years of building a rainbow of open marriage for all, the years of legal work, thought and maneuvering, all the castigation of traditional marriage for being bigoted for leaving people out, the egalitarianism, speeches and writings, even the Supreme Court with all its training, wisdom and resources--how in the world was polygamy left out by the movement? I thought this was all about including everybody. Guess not huh?

If your answer is that they're just fighting for a particular marriage right which is not inclusive, then they are doing what they are criticizing, and you have made my point.

All the hard work done by the LGBT community in the last several decades wasn't done to promote "open marriage" of all types. It was done specifically to get gay couples the identical legal right to marriage as hetero couples are granted. No more, no less.

You are misrepresenting the effort in order to push your bigoted strawman version just like you misrepresent the evolutionary sciences. Fortunately most Christians are more honest than that and can see through the ruse.

But according to SSM, traditional marriage (OSM) is homophobic and bigoted, for it is exclusive. But if I have misrepresented SSM as you charge, then that simply confirms that SSM is also exclusive, and therefore bigoted by their own judgment.

Cornelius, I really don't understand your logic. Was the fight for the right of women to vote bigotry because they weren't advocation for the right of children, non citizens and blacks to vote? Of course not. They were simply fighting for themselves.

SSM advocates were not trying to oppose OSM. With regard to polygamy or intraday illy marriage, if these people feel strongly for their cause they are free to advocate for it. They might even get some support from SSM advocates. After all, most of the support for SSM comes from heterosexuals realizing that there is no rational reason to prevent it.

But according to SSM, traditional marriage (OSM) is homophobic and bigoted, for it is exclusive.

Another false statement. OSM itself is not homophobic or bigoted. It's the religious conservatives who would deny equal marriage rights to LGBT people who are homophobic and bigoted.

Since we're playing attack the strawman today let me join in. Religious conservatives are now arguing for the right, under the guise of "religious freedom", to ignore anti-discrimination laws as they choose. Logically that means they should also be arguing to ignore any laws they so choose, including laws against pedophilia and robbing banks.

Why aren't religious conservatives also arguing for the right to practice pedophilia or rob banks? According to the slippery slope theory that's what they'll demand next, right?

My point was that SSM was not for equal rights, or opposing the "bigotry" of a marriage definition that excluded some people, but rather SSM was for yet another exclusive definition of marriage. There have been many years, and million of dollars of legal analysis, put into this thinking. It is no mistake that polygamy was left out. Don't expect that to change. By their own definition they are bigots.

OSM itself is not homophobic or bigoted. It's the religious conservatives who would deny equal marriage rights to LGBT people who are homophobic and bigoted.

Well you are having it both ways. You need an enemy so the view that they are exclusive and “homophobic and bigoted” can’t be forfeited. That gives SSM its justification and moral imperative. But you must deny it, because SSM is exclusive.

This isn’t about equal rights. They could have, for example, advocated government getting out of the marriage business, so it is simply a private affair, and these issues largely go away. That’s in interesting solution. Or they could have included everybody, so it would have been equal rights for all. It was no mistake that they didn’t do these approaches. The rainbow doesn’t include polygamy.

Religious conservatives are now arguing for the right, under the guise of "religious freedom", to ignore anti-discrimination laws as they choose.

Of course it is. The homophobic bigots who fought against marriage equality for the LGBT community lost. They've been consoling themselves all over the web by trying to smear the SCOTUS decision through false statements about how SSM has to support polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc. Let the bigots whine all the sour grapes they want, I hope it stings.

Yup, that’s the next step. It’s not going to stop here.

I'll look forward to your arguments for why religious conservatives have the right to be pedophiles and bank robbers.

I'm afraid bare assertions followed by switching to another subject are not very persuasive (not to mention fallacious). I explained whyy it is not about equal rights, and you ignored my explanation and resorted to another bare assertion. It you were correct, and this was about equal rights, then they would have been desperate to include polygamy.

Dr. Hunter, your point to Tonsa never occurred to me. Thank you for explaining it so clearly. I have always considered SSM a bad idea because, biblically it's forbidden. The other reason I think it's a bad idea is the proponents are so sure of their wisdom, that society will not be harmed. I don't share their optimism.

I have always considered SSM a bad idea because, biblically it's forbidden. The other reason I think it's a bad idea is the proponents are so sure of their wisdom, that society will not be harmed. I don't share their optimism.

Yes,I'm talking about inconsistencies with the SSM movement, but agreed, homosexuality is a sin. Let me just take this opportunity to say that I preach forgiveness on this in a big way. Also, I hope it is clear that when I say SSM is bigoted, I do not mean that in an absolute sense, but rather according to their own standards.

Homosexuals a have always had the same right as heterosexual to marry a member of the opposite sex. They have always had identical rights. They are demanding a new, that is, special right.

Interracial couples have always had the same right as same-race couples to marry a member of their own race. They have always had identical rights. Interracial couples were demanding a new, that is, special right.

The idiotic arguments that homophobic bigots come up with to justify their bigotry is both amazing and disgusting.

Cornelius: " It you were correct, and this was about equal rights, then they would have been desperate to include polygamy."

Using this argument, all equal rights movements are an expression of bigotry. By their nature, they start out centred on one issue and gain momentum. Women fought for the right to vote, and they were supported by many men. Are you arguing that they were being bigoted because they didn't extend the push to also demanding the vote for all other groups that were denied the vote at the time?

All I am saying is that you are confusing pragmatism and bigotry. The human rights movement has always been about making small gains to the ultimate goal. The fact that this "goal" will likely be a moving target does not detract from it.

Cornelius, I don't mean to belabour the point but I am really trying to understand why you think that the SSM movement involves bigotry and other rights movements (eg, women's vote, freedom of religion, etc.) did not. Maybe if you explained why the other movements were not bigoted I might better understand.

Using this argument, all equal rights movements are an expression of bigotry.

I understand your point, but I think you are over generalizing. Take woman’s suffrage or the black civil rights movements. Do they fit your model very well? I don’t think so. What I’m pointing out about the SSM is in reference to their own messaging. The whole point of the rainbow logo is diversity and inclusiveness. And their strong moral argument is that they are fighting a standard that is not inclusive, does not embrace equal rights for all and is bigoted. These are their messages, which they immediately turn around and disregard. Because those are just messages. Believe me, they are not going to support polygamy. They had the perfect chance to achieve their “equal rights” but did not do so. It wasn’t even a consideration.

I don't mean to belabour the point but I am really trying to understand why you think that the SSM movement involves bigotry and other rights movements (eg, women's vote, freedom of religion, etc.) did not. Maybe if you explained why the other movements were not bigoted I might better understand.

So, for example, America was founded on the premise of religious freedom. It wasn't religious freedom for Protestants, but no one else. It wasn't religious freedom for Catholics, but no one else. I'm not saying it was perfect. My point is simply that I don't think it fits your model very well. Were there obvious religious groups that were exluded?

Satanism. But seriously, Canada was also founded on freedom of religion. But that certainly did not apply to native religion. Up until the sixties (1960s) we forcibly removed aboriginal children fro their parents and raised them as Christians in residential schools. So, onbviously, freedom of religion was definitely a bigoted concept in Canada. I don't know enough about the US history but I suspect that freedom of religion was not always as inclusive a concept in practice as you claim.

With regard to the suffrage movement, it was about equal rights for women. But it certainly was not about equal rights for all women, until relatively recently. I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, the Chinese and aboriginal women were not included. In that respect, it is very much the same as the SSM movement.

I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, the Chinese and aboriginal women were not included.

But isn't that a much bigger issue, going far beyond women's rights?

In any case, there are probably examples on all sides. So getting back to your original point, I guess my answer would be that if you can find movements that obviously exclude other groups, in contradiction to their stated grievances and goals, then yes, they too are doing it wrong.

I don't agree that they are doing it wrong. They are being pragmatic. Yes, in an ideal world we would adress all human rights issues at the same time. But we don't live in an ideal world. Why would you expect gay rights movements to be more righteous than the the other "rights" issues? To me that would be the ultimate bigotry.

Before civil rights legislation, a black man did not have the same rights as a white person to marry a white woman. A homosexual man has always had the same right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man has. Homosexuals have always had identical rights. They are demanding a new right, not equal rights.

"So you are making my point. So a question for you: Why did SSM leave out polygamy? Forgot?"

You keep insisting that the push for SSM was an act of bigotry because it did not also advocate for polygamy. Yet you conveniently ignore the fact that every attempt throughout history to extend rights to a specific group has never actively advocated for other groups; many of them with equally valid claims. But if you want to believe that all attempts to extend rights are inherently bigoted because they don't actively advocate for every other possible claim, that is your right. But it seems like a hard sell to me.

"But I am comfortable in the belief that the right decision was made. "

Ok Acartia, so I'm listening to Dennis Prager this morning and he asks a good question. If two couples show up to adopt a child, one couple is man and woman the other couple is two men. They both want the same child. Who gets the child and why? Both are loving couples...

"If two couples show up to adopt a child, one couple is man and woman the other couple is two men. They both want the same child. Who gets the child and why? Both are loving couples.."

Why are you presenting this as a hypothetical. It happens frequently in Canada. Sometimes the opposite sex couple gets the child and sometimes the same sex couple does.

What is the point of your question? Are you suggesting that a same sex couple, because of their orientation, make poor parents? Or that children who are raised by a same sex couple are more likely to be homosexual? Or that children raised by same sex couples are more likely to be did functional?

Marcus, I answered your question directly. Sometimes the SS couple gets the child and sometimes the OS couple does. This is not a hypothetical, it is reality.

But you state that an OS couple is best for the child. Where is your data?

Will children in a SS family face challenges that s child in an OS family won't? Absolutely. Primary amongst them is the reaction by ignorant homophobes and the taunting by kids of ignorant homophobes. But a black child with a white couple will face challenges that a white child with a white couple (or a black child with a black couple) will. Should we not allow inter-racial adoptions?

Acartia, I was hoping you would give your personal opinion about who gets the child not what is happening in Canada. I wonder how you determine what is best for the child. Meg Meeker has written several books about raising children. She covers the importance of healthy father and mother and the impact on their child. Frankly, I don't need a study to show me something that is self evident. I think if you need a study to show you the nuclear family is best then the brainwashing is complete. Your teachers can move on to the next specimen.

Regarding the racial issue, I have no problem with inter-racial marriage or adoption. If you know me and my family, that would be obvious. Incidentally, I don't identify myself by what I do in the bedroom.

Acartia, I provided several facts in my senario. I addressed you, not what others are doing in Canada. 1. Child ready for adoption. 2. Two couples who are loving. 3. One couple is man and woman. 4. One couple is man and man.

Who gets the child and why? Do you flip a coin?

I want to know if you think there is no difference between the two options. I do have a followup question after you answer.

If you choose to allow the child to go with the man woman family, how do you prove you are not a bigot when the man-man family files a lawsuit? What are the other options?

Acartia, I provided several facts in my senario. I addressed you, not what others are doing in Canada. 1. Child ready for adoption. 2. Two couples who are loving. 3. One couple is man and woman. 4. One couple is man and man.

Who gets the child and why? Do you flip a coin?

I want to know if you think there is no difference between the two options. I do have a followup question after you answer.

If you choose to allow the child to go with the man woman family, how do you prove you are not a bigot when the man-man family files a lawsuit? What are the other options?

Acartia, I provided several facts in my senario. I addressed you, not what others are doing in Canada. 1. Child ready for adoption. 2. Two couples who are loving. 3. One couple is man and woman. 4. One couple is man and man.

Who gets the child and why? Do you flip a coin?

I want to know if you think there is no difference between the two options. I do have a followup question after you answer.

If you choose to allow the child to go with the man woman family, how do you prove you are not a bigot when the man-man family files a lawsuit? What are the other options?

First come first served and flipping a coin are options but only if there is no difference between the two couples. I think there is a difference. One is better for the child than the other. Thank you for helping me understand you.

"I think there is a difference. One is better for the child than the other. Thank you for helping me understand you."

Opinion, unsupported by fact. Unless you can provide with evidence that SS couples are inherently incapable of being good parents, all you have is opinion based on prejudice. The same reasons that were previously used to prevent white babies being placed with black couples.

You shouldn't need a study to show you that a man cannot be a mother or a woman cannot be a father. They can play the role but the best is the REAL THING. Even my 6 year old knows that.

You may want to read the scientific literature instead of consulting a 6 year old for your opinion. By far the most important thing in a child's healthy development is having a stable and loving family. The gender of the parents is not a significant factor.

Abstract: Claims that children need both a mother and father presume that women and men parent differently in ways crucial to development but generally rely on studies that conflate gender with other family structure variables. We analyze findings from studies with designs that mitigate these problems by comparing 2-parent families with same or different sex coparents and single-mother with single-father families. Strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers. Average differences favor women over men, but parenting skills are not dichotomous or exclusive. The gender of parents correlates in novel ways with parent-child relationships but has minor significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

Try reading this from actual kids who lived it. They tell a different story than your Alice in Wonderland vision. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

"Try reading this from actual kids who lived it. They tell a different story than your Alice in Wonderland vision."

Nothing says certainty like anecdotal testimony. I am not a statistical expert, but I am sure that conclusions drawn fro three degrees of freedom are not statistically robust. I wonder how many people raised by opposite sex couples would claim that their experiences were terrible?

You still have not answered the question; are same sex couples inherently incapable of being good parents? Unless you can say yes, and back it up with proof, you are simply providing opinion based on prejudice.

" I wonder how many people raised by opposite sex couples would claim that their experiences were terrible?"

Those people show some of the pitfalls.

Regarding whether they can be good parents, I don't know. That is a vague question. Nuclear family is best for the child period. I think government should support the best if possible.

We will not agree on most issues, but I thank you for the dialog.

I found a link to an APA article listing studies on both sides of the issue. Google---David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999)I certainly learned more about the issue than when we started our dialog.

CH: Or as Harvard’s Ernst Mayr wrote, “Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques” for explaining evolutionary events and processes.

July 2000, Scientific American, Mayr

"Another aspect of the new philosophy of biology concerns the role of laws. Laws give way to concepts in Darwinism. In the physical sciences, as a rule, theories are based on laws; for example, the laws of motion led to the theory of gravitation. In evolutionary biology, however, theories are largely based on concepts such as competition, female choice, selection, succession and dominance. These biological concepts, and the theories based on them, cannot be reduced to the laws and theories of the physical sciences. Darwin himself never stated this idea plainly. My assertion of Darwin’s importance to modern thought is the result of an analysis of Darwinian theory over the past century. During this period, a pronounced change in the methodology of biology took place. This transformation was not caused exclusively by Darwin, but it was greatly strengthened by developments in evolutionary biology. Observation, comparison and classification, as well as the testing of competing historical narratives, became the methods of evolutionary biology, outweighing experimentation.

Where there is no predictive heuristic or predictive hypothetico-deductive axioms that have an ontological interpretation, there is no inductive evidence. Thanks for reminding us, V, that there is precisely ZERO inductive evidence for UCA.

And the so-called "testing of competing narratives" never tested design narratives, because atheists define science as atheistic even though induction requires no such constraint for "testing" (i.e., evaluating explanatory/predictive hypotheses in terms of explanatory breadth, parsimony, probability, etc).

Any moron can define their way to being "right" by definition. But reasoning is the application of deduction to propositions and inductive criteria to predictive heuristics. It's pretty much nothing more nor less than that, despite what morons think.

Not so sure I should be thanked. It depends on whether I have given myself too much credit for thinking I follow what your intent was, woven between the laws of nature, antinomianism, religion and politics. I think you have set up evolutionists as a strawman, while it is more needful of a hypothesis that can be tested to call this science.

And if you tap your ruby red slippers together three times and say "There's no place like home" three times, it may come true. But please take a video of yourself doing this so that we can all get a good laugh.

I don't know, it seems a fair summary and understanding of evolution as an established science.

FYI I ran across this sight about 6 months ago and this is only the second time serendipty has met contingencies. ;-) [In the happinstance of actually reading it through.]

Here was my first encounter:http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/suppose-they-gave-theory-and-nobody.html

In fact, I believe it was a google of a facebook poster that tracked me to the first comment there in the reference to Hayek.

I note this now because I believe CH's use of "falsification" (there)and Austrian* thinking are where we have a semantical thesis: "Evolution is an established science." * still to be sorted, akin to "Evolutionist thought".

Thanks for the info and warning, I had guessed it was "Unintelligent Design". Not sure what you are sorry about, but if it anything like my happenstance LOL. BTW: This exchange has been challenging enough, but really they can modify comments. Doesn't that tell us something?